December 29, 2011

Asserts Jeffrey Toobin... mystifyingly. Holder is fighting against voter ID laws, and the argument that these laws violate rights isn't pure and simple, as Toobin's own article shows. So why is Toobin saying that? It's by contrast to all the other issues that Holder might want to use "to define his legacy as Attorney General — as something more than the guy who tried, and failed, to have Guantánamo Bay detainees tried in federal court in New York."

There is a purity, a simplicity, about the voting-rights fight that is sadly absent from many modern civil-rights battles. This is not about special privileges, or quotas, or even complex mathematical formulae.

Why be sad? The straightforward civil-rights battles have been won. Those that are left are questionable. That's good. Unless you define the good in terms of opportunities for Eric Holder to define his legacy.

It's about a basic right of American citizenship, which is being taken from large numbers of people for the most cynical of reasons. [Voter ID] laws are, quite literally, indefensible...

Being from Canada I'm always baffled that no one points out Canada requires voters to show ID. Is Canada a vicious, racist dictatorship? A reporter should ask Obama or Holder this question. But of course there are no real reporters.

While it may be "clear" that case law says requiring an ID doesn't violate the Constitution, is it as clear about how difficult/costly it may be for that ID to require?

For instance, we have at read reports about a citizen here in WI who will have to pay $200 in order to get The Official Government ID so she can vote. We also have many of the offices across the state which issue The Official Government ID that are only open every-other-month.

This whole "Just get an ID" concept isn't always so pure and simple....

We also have many of the offices across the state which issue The Official Government ID that are only open every-other-month.

Let's look at this pragmatically. When the federal government told everyone they had more than a year (wasn't it two years?) to get their shit together before the tv conversion thing a few years back, they still felt the need to add a six month extension because not enough people had complied. In the case of Voter ID and in your example, they have almost a year (ie, six opportunities) to get their ID ready.

While I respect and admire the ideal of one-man/one-vote, isn't it quite possible that some people are simply too stupid or just don't care enough to be afforded every single wetnurse-like consideration? Seems to me the voter needs to meet the government halfway at least.

You do an admirable job of Fisking Toobin Ann. But is there anyone other than you who takes this clown seriously? I don't think he even takes himself seriously. He is just a hack for team blue. And this is what hacks do.

It is a tough choice. Hacks like Toobin and Lithwick, who in her defense may actually be as dumb as she appears and not even know she is a hack, don't deserve to be left unrebutted. Yet, at the same time, the things they write are so obviously ridiculous, that I am not sure they are worth the trouble.

For instance, we have at read reports about a citizen here in WI who will have to pay $200 in order to get The Official Government ID so she can vote. We also have many of the offices across the state which issue The Official Government ID that are only open every-other-month.

Link to that article. I refuse to believe that it costs $200 to get a non driver ID.

Re: the offices that are open intermittently. Boo freaking Hoo. We have no locations in our rural area to get ID, go to court, see any ANY government officials. We have to drive 2 hours one way to get to those places.

If you want to vote OR.... need to get an identification card for all of the requirements of modern living, plan ahead. It is YOUR responsibility.

You need a card to cash a check, rent a car, get any government services, apply for a loan, enter many public buildings, rent a freaking video game for CHRIST'S SAKE.

The idea that you don't need to be identified to exercise one of the most IMPORTANT functions of being a citizen is just ludicrous.

Ludicrous to those of us who take the subject seriously and are concerned about voter fraud.

If you are FOR voter fraud, you would take the stance that voting should be done without verification of identity or citizenship.

This whole "Just get an ID" concept isn't always so pure and simple....

Yes it is. If you are a legal citizen it is easy to get an identification. Millions and millions of people do it all the time.

Are you suggesting that 'some people' (code words for blacks and other ethnics) are too stupid or incompetent to function in society? Really??

If you are suddenly concerned about how hard it is to get an ID, I suggest you set up a non profit and get as many people registered and issued with ID cards as you can. In fact, why not register twice, three times, what the hell....no one is going to know because we are not checking identification....

Oh....wait....we already have that organization it was/is ACORN, which is an arm of the Democrat party.

As for people being too lazy, stupid, poor to have IDs, I'm not sure this is a road we should head down.

Why not? Are suggesting that the reason some people are poor is not because they are either lazy, stupid, or both? On the other hand, it's entirely possible to be lazy and stupid (at least in terms of voting) and not be poor. I know a LOT of people that would fall into that category.

Why disenfranchise some voters then? What's the legitimate state interest?

Republican policies are unpopular with the masses. Keep as many people away from the polls as possible and your chances at reelection goes up. Besides, Republicans don't even think people that don't vote for them should be able to vote at all. So what's the big whup?

Maybe I don't want stupid people to vote, maybe I don't want republicans to vote.

What I do want is a system where regardless of wealth, intelligence, "work ethic" and a host of other factors, every person gets a vote.

@Tim People who previously have voted who don't have an ID may be stopped from voting because they can't or don't meet the new requirements. I would assume any barriers, however light, will turn away some voters. We are already well below 50% turnout in this nation.

I assume no citizens will be prevented from legally voting, simply because no adult is able to function in society without an official ID.

I love that so many people assume everyone has IDs. It's simply not the case! If it was, this wouldn't even be a discussion! Assume you don't own a car and don't have any spare money. Tell me why you NEED an ID?

People have a second amendment right to own a gun. I wonder if Toobin would be keen on ending any identification requirement for purchasing a gun. If you are too poor to have an ID, why should that make you too poor to own a gun?

Having no requirement to certify the authenticity of a voter simply shows how unserious we can be about voting. In a nation that can't be trusted to purchase the "right" light bulb, why do we assume that no one would lie about voting?

Holder is attempting to cheapen the value of voting not stake out an important civil rights position.

As for Toobin, one could have written this piece in advance and simply waited for him to publish something nearly identical. He's stopped thinking. We know why.

This explains the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and in state legislatures, as well as Barack Obama's "high" approval ratings and the US Senate teetering on the edge of a Republican majority.

"For instance, we have at read reports about a citizen here in WI who will have to pay $200 in order to get The Official Government ID so she can vote. We also have many of the offices across the state which issue The Official Government ID that are only open every-other-month. This whole "Just get an ID" concept isn't always so pure and simple...."

The Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to a voter ID law, but left open the possibility of an "as applied" challenge, so the person in a very strange position could argue that as to her, it's a constitutional rights violation. But how do you bring that lawsuit, when it's more expensive to sue than to pay the $200 and get an ID?

This explains the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and in state legislatures, as well as Barack Obama's "high" approval ratings and the US Senate teetering on the edge of a Republican majority.

You cite people voted in to counter his (admittedly silly) argument? Wow fail.

I would really like to meet all these voters that would be disenfranchised by an ID requirement. They're completely off the grid - they can't get a bank account, can't get a debit card or a credit card, buy a house, rent an apartment, or do any of the multitude of things that the VAST majority of us take for granted, but they faithfully show up to vote everywhere that photo ID isn't required.

"I love that so many people assume everyone has IDs. It's simply not the case! If it was, this wouldn't even be a discussion! Assume you don't own a car and don't have any spare money. Tell me why you NEED an ID?"

You can't get a job without an ID. Every employer has the duty to ensure their employees are legal residents. You can't get any sort of government assistance without an ID. You can't have a bank account without an ID and all government assistance comes in the form of electronic deposit or debit card these days.

So you can't hold a job or get any form of direct government assistance without an ID. The only people who don't have an ID are illegal aliens and people who are so profoundly disabled they are cared for completely by someone else.

Just do everyone a favor and stop insulting people's intelligence. There are all kinds of rights that require ID. Any form of government aid is a property right and you don't get that without an ID. You can't purchase a gun in most states without an ID. You can't live in this society without an ID. Claiming otherwise is just revealing yourself to either be completely stupid or completely dishonest.

What I do want is a system where regardless of wealth, intelligence, "work ethic" and a host of other factors, every person gets a vote.

What about "desire to vote?" I would daresay that someone who can't be bothered to obtain a free ID that would also be of great use to them in many other areas of society, doesn't have much desire at all to vote. What we need to compare is not the number of people who could *theoretically* have voted who now will not, but the number of people with no ID, and no apparent desire to get one, who would nonetheless have cared enough to register, go to the polls, stand in line, and vote. I posit that this number is miniscule.

The Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to a voter ID law, but left open the possibility of an "as applied" challenge, so the person in a very strange position could argue that as to her, it's a constitutional rights violation. But how do you bring that lawsuit, when it's more expensive to sue than to pay the $200 and get an ID?

Pro Se, and with waivers of the filing fee.

Or get an ID with the waivers for voting.

But "as applied" means that people in that position simply won't jump through those hoops. The better question is, "why should they?"

Dose (of something) "How much does that cost? How much would it cost if you didn't own a car?

Also, I find you totally incapable of reason. I know I've said it before, but your posts continue to shock me."

I point out that there are always difficulties associated with citizenship and with living in a modern society.

My CHOICE to live in a rural area presents different obstacles than those who live elsewhere. It it MY responsibility to overcome those difficulties or find help if I needed it. Voting is one of the more important responsibilities of citizenship.

Citizenship isn't (or shouldn't be) a one way street where the government gives and you sit back on your ass with no responsibilities. This is probably the most fundamental difference of opinion. I think that people should be responsible for themselves and responsible TO society. YOU think that people don't need to be responsible and that society exists to take care of YOU and relieve you of your duties and responsibilities.

If it isn't important enough to me to follow the rules or obtain a required ID, then I don't deserve to vote.

My suggestion is that if YOU feel that the common requirement of living in society, using an identification, is impossible for some people for whatever reason, start your own 'help the stupid and lazy' organization.

I don't give a rat's ass if you are shocked. You need to get out more.

And of course if all of these "voting rights" groups were interested in anything but fraud, they would be out helping people get IDs. An ID is necessary to be a part of society. They would be doing people a favor by helping them get one.

Yet, they never seem to do that and instead work to ensure no ID is required. Odd that.

For instance, we have at read reports about a citizen here in WI who will have to pay $200 in order to get The Official Government ID so she can vote. We also have many of the offices across the state which issue The Official Government ID that are only open every-other-month.

I would like to point out that if Democrats care so deeply that this particular woman be able to vote at absolutely no cost to her, they could have just cut her a $200 check instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to recall the governor.

That may be a possibility. Yet the ward I voted in for a long time was always crowded and many of the people there didn't have ID. I don't know whether they would obtain them to go to the polls, especially since it is theoritically "free". I don't know any way we can prove either of our theories without actually implementing the laws and then trying to control for other variables. (or recording the number of people turned away).

Because, under federal law, all newborn citizens are required to obtain their Social Security Number. This number manifests itself in a card. Under state laws, all newborn citizens are required to be provided official certificates of birth. Both the card and the birth certificate are used to enroll in school; the SSN card is used, along with one other required identification (usually, but not always, a state-issued driver's license) to complete Form I-9, in compliance with immigration law.

I refuse to believe you do not know this; I think it is clear you are arguing in bad faith, per below:

This requirement for official ID in modern life is utterly self-evident, and it is equally self-evident that arguments to the contrary are completely and utterly disingenuous.

There simply are no significant barriers to obtaining official ID, and the numbers of people who might otherwise "live off the grid" (or are too dumb, too lazy or too stupid to get official ID) is vanishingly small, and should have no effect whatsoever on meaningful efforts to ensure the right of one man, one vote are upheld.

And of course if all of these "voting rights" groups were interested in anything but fraud, they would be out helping people get IDs. An ID is necessary to be a part of society. They would be doing people a favor by helping them get one.

Yet, they never seem to do that and instead work to ensure no ID is required. Odd that.

Democratic policies are unpopular with the middle. Get as many people, without worrying if they are citizens to the polls as possible and your chances at reelection goes up. Besides, Democrats don't even think people that don't vote for them should have their votes diluted by inelligble voters. So what's the big whup?

No it is not. If someone commits fraud and votes twice or votes when they have no right to, they have effectively disenfranchised at least one legitimate voter by canceling their vote. Voter fraud is just as much of a threat to one man one vote as poll taxes.

Yet, voting rights groups are not interested in preventing fraud. In fact they work to ensure it. That is because they like you are not acting in good faith and want voter fraud because they think it will help ensure the result they want.

I'm reminded of a column written a few years back in my local paper about how the whole dust-up over ACORN was silly. After all, something like 61% of the voter registrations they were turning in weren't fraudulent! That proved there was nothing to worry about now didn't it?

I mean, if ONLY 40% of the registrations are phony obviously everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over nothing, right?

But having to get a state ID card is difficult and costly too, right? Here's what it takes to prove your ID to vote in Texas (straight from the Texas Secretary of State website):

* a driver's license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety or a similar document issued to the person by an agency of another state, regardless of whether the license or card has expired;* a form of identification containing the person's photograph that establishes the person's identity;* a birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person's identity;* United States citizenship papers issued to the person;* a United States passport issued to the person;* official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity;* a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or* any other form of identification prescribed by the Secretary of State.

Looks pretty easy to me. And it's one hell of a lot more than you need to get food from our parish pantry.

"I again point out that Wisconsin has VERY LITTLE voter fraud, and NONE of it would have been stopped by the ID law."

No, there are very few cases of prosecuted voter fraud. Neither you nor I have any idea how much fraud actually occurs since we can't know how many cases go undiscovered. And further, voter ID laws are designed to prevent fraud. So the lack of fraud could just as easily be evidence of their effectiveness rather than the lack of need for them.

I again point out that Wisconsin has VERY LITTLE voter fraud, and NONE of it would have been stopped by the ID law......that you are personally aware of. I think it's a bit hubristic of you to maintain that you have asbolute knowledge of the truth, particularly when there is little possible means of discovering the truth - in part because of the very policies you push for!

Your argument is essentially circular:"There is no fraud, so we don't need to look for fraud. We don't need to look for fraud, because there is no fraud."

You know we are talking about a state-issued photo ID, right? You seem confused, citing all of those forms of identification which WOULDNT SATISFY the law.

So? The State ID requirement is sensible to prevent people who are NOT residents of the State from voting and swaying elections in States where they are not registered to vote. For example, thousands of people busing in from other states to vote in a recall election or students voting in the state where they came from and the state where they are going to school.

Of course, you like those ideas.

I have a California Driver's License. It is only a convenience and mutual agreement that allows me to drive "temporarily" in another State. IF I move to Montana, I would be required to register in that State as my Ca. lic would be no longer good and I have to re-register my vehicle.

When I was a Securities Representative, I needed to be licensed in EACH State that I wanted to do business in and even in States where my clients spent winters. (Snowbirds) To be licensed to do life insurance business I have to be licensed in each state.

The requirements to get licensed for those activities are very strict and difficult and expensive to comply with.

Getting a itty bitty voter ID card is a part of the requirement to vote.

That's true that it may exist. I can't prove a negative. I find it extremely difficult to justify a law which even just MIGHT disenfranchise some voters on the grounds it would help prevent fraud without a SINGLE case/prosecution of fraud that it would have prevented.

DoS, you don't have the data to claim that there are very few cases of voter fraud. If the present system is designed not to validate voters, then of course it will not produce evidence. The claim is mere conjecture.

Detecting voter fraud is a lot like detecting malicious network traffic: if you don't look for it, you won't find it unless something occurs too disruptive to ignore. The only way we ever detect widespread vote fraud at present is to have a logically absurd result, like more ballots counted than cast, or more ballots counted than registered voters.

Otherwise, voter fraud can go on (and has) unimpeded for decades, so long as all that happens is individuals registering in multiple jurisdictions, or registering all the local nursing-home and cemetery residents to vote in their stead. The fraud event is only detected if someone shows up to discover that another has voted already under his name. Voter ID makes these latter fraud events more difficult by putting in a detection point. But you know that already.

That's true that it may exist. I can't prove a negative. I find it extremely difficult to justify a law which even just MIGHT disenfranchise some voters on the grounds it would help prevent fraud without a SINGLE case/prosecution of fraud that it would have prevented.

Well. That's a good argument to take to your legislators, or the voters. "I don't think it will work" is not a constitutional argument. Remember? We were talking about *rights,* not *efficacy.*

Sorry, it is a bad link. The Data there is good, I just grabbed the first good google link that had the data I was citing to. (the 7 cases, etc). Those same numbers were reported in multiple places, including the JS.

Requiring an ID to enter the voting booth is no more onerous or discriminatory than requiring a person to register to vote in the first place.

No one questions the need for voter registration, to create a list of people who are qualified to vote. And in order to register, one must present some proof of identification.

And nearly every place that I am aware of, when one registers to vote, a voter registration card is issued to them. Sticking a photo on that voter registration card would not be that difficult, especially since the motor-voter laws require being able to register at DMV offices.

Progressives equate these measures with racism. To require an ID to vote is racist. To trim food stamp funding is racist. And yet the majority of voters are white and the majority of food stamp users are white. What can one conclude other than progressives believe blacks too stupid or lazy to get the ID or to survive without govt. food.

Holder's approach, the writer's view, comport with this insult to black Americans.

Republicans spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to find fraud in Wisconsin, and could not find it. Now we're spending millions implementing the new law fixing a problem that doesn't exist, at a time when we're supposedly broke. Photo ID only would prevent impersonation fraud, which is about as rare as a Sasquatch sighting.

To me, why would someone commit a felony unless they got some gain out of it? (i.e. they would change the outcome).

In order to change an outcome, wouldn't you need widespread fraud? Are we suggesting that exists?

[Note: this is not to say fraud doesn't exist and is not to say we shouldn't be vigilant about it, but I am curious why this assumption exists, but the assumption that people will be disenfranchised is so difficult to swallow. This is an honest question, not an argument point]

Photo ID only would prevent impersonation fraud, which is about as rare as a Sasquatch sighting.

Objection, facts not in evidence.

Here's the bottom line, Garage, DoS: even if little fraud actually is taking place, this is a worthwhile measure to maintain confidence in the voting system. An election that is widely distrusted is ineffective even if it is accurate. Trust in the system is the most valuable resource a democracy has, and you can only squander so much of it away before it is gone.

If you want to find something out, and somebody is trying to stop you from finding that thing out, it is a reasonable inference that the thing they want to stop you from finding out is damaging to them in some way. Inferences can be wrong, of course, but it is not irrational.

If you want to find something out, and somebody is trying to stop you from finding that thing out, it is a reasonable inference that the thing they want to stop you from finding out is damaging to them in some way. Inferences can be wrong, of course, but it is not irrational.

Because the democrats don't want this law, you assume it's because THEY are committing this fraud?

Dose of Sanity said...Maybe I don't want stupid people to vote, maybe I don't want republicans to vote.

Oh, perhaps this is why Democratically-controlled election boards across the nation have gone out of their way to make sure the military (you know, those people who give their lives to protect our right to vote but who mainly vote Republican) don't get ballots in time to return them quickly enough to get counted. The time constraints are mandated by law, routinely violated by those Democratic-controlled election boards with the benign and active complicity of Eric "my people" Holder.

An analysis of the uncounted military votes in the 2010 election strictly because of these violations of law showed that the tsunami of Democrats ousted would have been even worse if they had been counted.

What a coincidence.

Where do you stand on this despicable practice of your fellow leftlings, Dose?

What I do want is a system where regardless of wealth, intelligence, "work ethic" and a host of other factors, every person gets a vote... I would assume any barriers, however light, will turn away some voters. We are already well below 50% turnout in this nation.

OK, Dose, how about this to spur the voter turnout you claim is so important to you? Let's get rid of this stupid 18th century practice of voting on a Tuesday, since many registered voters have this thing called a "job" (look it up) and can't get time off to vote. Why can't we make it the first weekend in November instead, both Saturday and Sunday?

This would mean that those with "jobs" would have much more opportunity to vote. Of course, this might not help Democrats so much, as students, the homeless, union members, both private and public, those on welfare, illega..., oops, sorry, Potentially insufficiently Documented Future Reliable Democrat Voters of La Raza, and many others crammed under the Donkey Big Tent have plenty of time to vote on Tuesdays.

It's about a basic right of American citizenship, which is being taken from large numbers of people for the most cynical of reasons. [Voter ID] laws are, quite literally, indefensible...

Toobin was on an NPR panel yesterday, opining on voter ID laws. He asserted that 'every qualified voter should be able to vote without restriction', but then demolished his own argument by ignoring his 'qualified' requirement. Henceforth yammering that ANY restriction on some would-be voter showing up at the polls would be a travesty of civil rights and democracy.

Toobin talks like some lofty intellectual, but reasons like an ACORN operative working at DOJ.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) Because the democrats don't want this law, you assume it's because THEY are committing this fraud

Because Al Franken was elected by a box of votes “found” in a car trunk…because a Democrat won in Oregon by the barest of margins, and it turns out that several hundred felons voted…Because questionable votes seem to help Democrats…Because ACORN registered Democrats….

I think whatever public sentiment is behind this, it's for thousands of poor, inner city people (namely blacks) who can't even get IDs...to get IDs and be "enfranchised." Moral recognition and inclusion is closely aligned with gov't assistance (and fighting old school civil rights battles).

My experience can act as an actual/real example of (potential) voter fraud. Many moons ago I was a student in Wisconsin, during that time there was a presidential election that I wanted to vote in. I still had my out of state ID and was still a registered voter in that state. I did not get my absentee ballot; I just registered at the polling place when I went to vote and voted away in Wisconsin. I could have voted in my previous state as well being that I was registered there. Which one of these votes would have been fraudulent? My guess is that my Wisconsin vote was fraudulent. I also know I was not the only one to do this in that the polling place was full of students that I recognized. All of this voter fraud could have been eliminated by the voter ID law in that I would have had to change my ID to Wisconsin, thus eliminating my previous states registration.

I think this ability to have out of state students vote in Wisconsin is one of the main reason people are fighting against the law.

Because the democrats don't want this law, you assume it's because THEY are committing this fraud?

No. But it is a reasonable inference. Particulary because Democrats have not done a good job at all of explaining what is so unreasonable about this, when ID is required for the provision of almost every other government service. Without good contrary explanations, inference will rule the day.

It's pure and simple that Holder wants to make it as easy as possible to commit voter fraud. He wants a rebirth of ACORN picking up whomever, telling them who to vote for and then taking them to the polls.

Well, I'm a conservative, and our assumption is quite clear: Democrats oppose ID laws, not to insure that everyone can vote, but to allow them to use voter fraud to steal close elections. Because, it's stupid to worry that there are people who can't get IDs.

Okay? Clear enough?

Now this picture is based on the assumption that voter fraud is an important tool of Democrats. Does anyone have evidence for that (I saw one post of some evidence against), or is this just paranoia?

Regardless, I'm going to think that ID laws make sense, because it is dumb to think that people can't get ID. But I'd like to know that the Democrats on the other side are just dumb and not evil.

Link to that article. I refuse to believe that it costs $200 to get a non driver ID

http://tinyurl.com/bls7b5t

Now that you know, does it make a difference at all in your opinion?

the offices that are open intermittently. Boo freaking Hoo

Oh. Well, based on that attitude then I reckon I know the answer to my previous question...

you need a card to cash a check, rent a car, get any government services, apply for a loan, enter many public buildings, rent a freaking video game for CHRIST'S SAKE.

Not quite. Many (all?) of those examples can be accomplished with a different form of ID than the Official Government Identification Card that is required for us to exercise our right to vote.

There is no such thing as a legitimate voter who can't get ID.

Ruth (linked above) is 84 years old and says she has voted in every election, yet will have to pay $200 in order to get the Required ID for the next elections. Are you saying that her previous votes were not legitimate?

You can't get a job without an ID.

The forms of ID that can be used to fulfill the requirements for being hired are much more varied than the Official Government ID that is required for citizens to vote.

Republican policies are unpopular with the masses. Keep as many people away from the polls as possible and your chances at reelection goes up. Besides, Republicans don't even think people that don't vote for them should be able to vote at all. So what's the big whup?

You hit it on the nose, garage. I applaud you for your insightful and illuminating analysis.

I think Holder might deep down want people to be enfranchised, of course, voter intimidation (the Black Panther Philly case, all kinds of corruption by black officials in the deep South), buying votes, bussing votes, thugging votes, are just likely consequences.

Like I said, it's interesting to watch democrats (and many upper crust white liberals with NO experience of such things) try and defend such policies and keep the party together, like Toobin does, for middle-brow consumption.

No. But it is a reasonable inference. Particulary because Democrats have not done a good job at all of explaining what is so unreasonable about this, when ID is required for the provision of almost every other government service. Without good contrary explanations, inference will rule the day.

Ah, I see. My own contrary explanation arises from the fact that this nation has a history of making polling requirements strict enough to disenfranchise voters. This was done mainly in the south to prevent black people from voting.

I think it's clear that at some point, restrictions on voting reach a point where we would all agree the system isn't fair. For instance, if the requirement was that you must be a landowner, a male, a college grad, or whatever, people would object.

We object to this line-drawing because we are worried about the people who may end up on the "cant" vote side.

Having no line will also have adverse affects - its one of the reasons felons cant vote (in most states). This could be called racist too, because of the higher number of blacks that are felons (proportionally). However, we see the purpose for this and it crosses the threshold to keep them from voting.

We don't think that "not having an ID" should be on equal level to "felon".

"Ruth (linked above) is 84 years old and says she has voted in every election, yet will have to pay $200 in order to get the Required ID for the next elections. Are you saying that her previous votes were not legitimate?"

She could apply for an absentee ballot without an ID (since she's already registered) and then vote absentee for the rest of her life (after 1 application), so the interest she's asserting is only in being able to vote in person.

Ruth (linked above) is 84 years old and says she has voted in every election, yet will have to pay $200 in order to get the Required ID for the next elections. Are you saying that her previous votes were not legitimate?

Half the potential voters don't pay any income taxes. Those who don't have ID are most likely to belong to that group and vote Democrapic as Democraps promise them all sorts of free money that they'll take from the evil rich.

Somehow, this never helps the poor become unpoor, but that doesn't really matter because if the poor weren't poor, they might not vote for Democraps.

Keep in mind a non-driver ID is available in all states and costs substantially less ($10 - 14 in NY state, for example) than a driver's license, so the "They're excluding minorities and the poor" argument is a crock.

WV "sablesi" What your Mexican mistress said when she was asked what kind of fur she liked.

"voters will be able to cast their ballot in next Tuesday's Republican Iowa caucuses without bothering to show a photo ID -- even though the Republican Party itself sets their own rules for voting there."

NOTHING to do with voter fraud and EVERYTHING to do with reducing the number of voters who might vote for Democrats!

Half the potential voters don't pay any income taxes. Those who don't have ID are most likely to belong to that group and vote Democrapic as Democraps promise them all sorts of free money that they'll take from the evil rich.

Somehow, this never helps the poor become unpoor, but that doesn't really matter because if the poor weren't poor, they might not vote for Democraps.

I'm ignoring the rest of your tripe, but I bolded something I find absolutely stupid. Those people pay taxes, and lots of it. It's silly to say they don't.

She could apply for an absentee ballot without an ID (since she's already registered) and then vote absentee for the rest of her life (after 1 application), so the interest she's asserting is only in being able to vote in person

The ID requirements to vote are totally waived for an absentee ballot?

Not that I'd doubt a law professor when it comes to The Law, but that doesn't seem to make any sense at all...

2. Maybe you should have to show you know something, before being allowed to vote (really, what percent of people voting are almost totally ignorant of the issues?).

I can't get execited about this. There is no doubt voter fraud. It is surely higher than "they" think because, if successful, you don't know about it.

Years ago, I answered the phone and it was a political survey. The first couple of questions were to name your Senators and Congressman, which I did. The interviewer stopped, and told me that in YEARS of doing this, I was the first person to ever know all three answers. Scary, isn't it? Why should the others be allowed to vote?

Someone beat you to that argument already. It's a decent one, but I'd put the right to OWN a gun vs. the right to VOTE as a seperate category.

You have a direct right to vote.You don't have a direct right to a gun, only to own a gun.

It's not a great distinction, but that's the best phrasing I have for what's in my head.I also happen to strongly disagree with SCOTUS on the 2nd amendment...I'm not convinced it won't be reversed in the future. That's another issue, for another thread. :)

Here's the bottom line, Garage, DoS: even if little fraud actually is taking place, this is a worthwhile measure to maintain confidence in the voting system

Can you find even one voter impersonation case in Wisconsin? Ever? It is the only instance of fraud photo ID would prevent. You have to drag yourself to a pretty ridiculously place to make this argument, and I know you don't believe any of it.

The most obvious reason is that people keep being caught registering thousands of non-existent voters, which is an awfully silly felony to commit if there is no plan to cast votes under those phony names.

Democrats and their allies cheat at every step of the voting process, up to and including the vote itself. In CA, the politically neutral redistricting process was Astroturfed in a coordinated effort by Wash DC and CA Dems. ACORN's voter registration fraud is legendary. Recall signature fraud in WI is documented (sign multiple times!) Four Dems in Troy NY just pleaded guilty to forging absentee ballots. All of this took place within the last couple of years. Every step of the "front end" of the voting process, up to and including the actual vote, is corrupted by Democrats; you expect me to believe that they are above in person vote fraud?

I'm not saying that Republicans don;t cheat; but it's a fact that the Democrats do.

However, I think voter ID is more complicated than conservatives make it. Never estimate the ability of politicians to screw up a simple idea. An ID requirement must be accompanied by a simple, free, convenient way to get said ID.

So what is the set of people who don't have a valid SSN or Driver's License? Even my kids have a SSN. I wonder if the more complicated problem related to voter ID is proof of residency. Voting is local.

I do have to provide proof of residency to send my kids to public school. How about only people with kids in public school get to vote? That'll peel off the rich and non-parents. Sorry, non-parents.

The most obvious reason is that people keep being caught registering thousands of non-existent voters, which is an awfully silly felony to commit if there is no plan to cast votes under those phony names.

Unless those people registering have a quota to meet and thus have a personal financial incentive to fake registration. /sigh

Only to prove they are an adult, and The Official Government Identification Card shouldn't be the only acceptable form of ID allowed.

Are there any other basic Constitutional Rights you think that a person should be required to acquire the The Official Government Identification Card?

For example, I don't think people should be required to show an ID before changing to a different church or be required to present an ID before starting a blog. However, if those were the laws of the land then would ya'll claim it ain't a big deal 'cause ID is so easy for everyone to acquire?

Once again, impoverished or inappropriate language is clouding the debate.

Forget the phrase 'Voter ID'. Instead, state it in terms of the principle at stake, namely "Before we count your vote, you need to prove that you are who you say you are".

Then, instead of getting away with saying the meaningless phrase "I'm against Voter ID" (with a whiff of being anti-Big Brother ( a good thing) along for the ride), the person has to instead say why they are against the need for someone to document that they are who they say they are." MUCH harder to defend that.

Eric Holder is a racist son of a bitch who needs to resign. All he talks about is how bad blacks have it in this country. It is pretty obvious that he resents white people proven by his DOJ policy of not prosecuting civil rights violations unless the victim is black. Now, he is using his office to target laws simply because white voters approve of them. He is an embarrassment to the USA. He has violated his oath of office. Time for him to go.

Jesus Christ! Man, you must run a feed lot or be a lawyer to put up so many straw man arguments."Well what if you didn't drive or own a car, and didn't need extra money?" "ID's target minorities. Besides, illegal aliens get false ones easily"(really? its easier for an illegal to get a false ID than a legal minority?)

Here's some straw man arguments for you... What if Democrats didn't lie every time they opened their mouth's? What if Bill Clinton stopped raping women? What if Barrack Obama was born in Kenya?

And Garage, you're just a lyin' little weasel. Polls have shown that the majority of American's want voter ID. The only hold up IS the Democratic party because they KNOW they"ll lose more elections than the Republicans if they can't cheat. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

By the way, why is it Unions, not the union members, are against voter ID but pro-open voting when it comes to organizing? Maybe because they can cheat in one, and threaten in the other? No, they would never do that.

There were 200,000 fraudulent voter registrations found in Ohio in 2008. The Democrat Secretary of State blocked any investigation into whether any of them resulted in fraudulent votes cast.

Without vote fraud, the Democrats wouldn't win another office higher than dog catcher for decades.

But you know that. You don't care about one-man, one-vote; or you'd be equally concerned about the fact that every instance of vote fraud cancels out a legitimate vote. There's zero difference between allowing fraud and keeping a segment of the population from voting based on race or gender or socioeconomic status.

And the old saw about "there is no voter fraud" -- that's hi-larious. I bet if we pulled all of the highway patrolmen off of the turnpike we'd eliminate the problem of speeding.

But you know that. You don't care about one-man, one-vote; or you'd be equally concerned about the fact that every instance of vote fraud cancels out a legitimate vote. There's zero difference between allowing fraud and keeping a segment of the population from voting based on race or gender or socioeconomic status.

I know it's hard to believe, but I am honestly concerned about that. I really believe our system works best with real discussion and real votes for everyone.

I am trying to state my point as clearly as I can and without attacking (too much). Hopefully, it leads to decent discussions.

I love that everyone says "show me these citizens without Ids" but clams up at the "show me the fraud" argument.

Think of this as a scientific hypothesis that we are attempting to prove or disprove.

You need both of those variables in the situation to make a decision or to prove whether there is fraud or not.

If there is no way to determine identity of the voter, then there is no way to detect fraud.

In any scientific experiment you need a control or control group. Without control or a basis of comparison the hypothesis that there is NO or a small level of fraud: or the opposite hypothesis that there IS fraud, is impossible to prove.

If the control of ID is implemented and there is no change in voting patterns or volume then we MIGHT be able to conclude that the condition of fraud didn't exist in the first place.

If the control shows a significant change in pattern, then there exists a condition that was affected by the institution of the control. The hypothesis that it was/is fraud can possibly be the conclusion.

Voter ID provides that control.

It is really that simple.

Or there may be another condition than fraud, let us assume the boogeyman of disenfranchisement, which would then require another experiment and control to prove that hypothesis.

To assume either fraud, no fraud or disenfranchisement without instituting controls is just speculation and wild guessing.

The election of the future leaders of our country is too important to be left to wild speculation.

The argument that "it's hard to get ID" is ludicrous. Full stop. It's even more stupid when you argue that this affects poor blacks more than poor whites. It's racist as well.

If your particular State ID issuer can't be bothered to serve the citizens, but instead serve themselves by closing the doors every other month, maybe some changes in the beaurocracy are in order to keep it open every week.

Dose of Sanity:Here is the only part of your comment I left out, because I was responding to your contention that you care about voter turnout. It was not germane to my points, since ensuring the military votes get counted and a minor change to the voting calendar would not stop anyone who has previously voted from doing so in the future:

@Tim People who previously have voted who don't have an ID may be stopped from voting because they can't or don't meet the new requirements.

I apologize if my tone was too snarky for you. You should check out the ones from commenters on your side sometime.

So I ask again, without snark:

Holder has been winking and nodding at widespread Democratic-controlled election boards violations of law concerning the timing of sending ballots to the military, effectively disenfranchising those who fight and die for our very right to vote. The DOJ granted waivers to the law to a number of blue states, and instead of formally challenging these violations of election law wherever it occured, merely said it intended to "work with" those boards.

What do you think of that?

And secondly, what about my idea to change the vote calendar from a Tuesday, which make it very difficult for employed people to vote, to the first weekend in November, both Saturday and Sunday? The Tuesday requirement was set up back in ancient times when the very concept of "weekend" was unknown to most Americans. And it is obvious that there are considerably larger swaths of people who vote Democrat than republican for whom voting on Tuesdays is not a problem, and even those groups would be more encouraged to vote by having a longer period to do so on non-working days.

Please show me where my logic failed.

The fact that fixing both these serious problems would no doubt hurt Democrats more than Republicans is not my fault.

No, you simply misunderstand the argument. The argument is that the Constitution, as it is, does not specifically require that everyone be permitted to vote. There are some amendments, particularly the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th, that specify certain things that may not be used as reasons to limit the right to vote, but they do not contrariwise *require* people to be permitted to vote.

This places the right to vote in a different category than certain other constitutional rights, such as free speech, due process, and yes, even gun ownership, which are specifically guaranteed to be universally applicable.

There are many situations in which a person legally allowed to cast a vote is denied that right.People may not cast an absentee ballot and find themselves traveling on election day, or they may have been scheduled to have the day off and get called in to work, etc.Yet the Democrats are obsessed with the idea that somewhere, some member of a democrat constituency won't be allowed to vote because they can't present proof of identity and residence. Very odd.

"Two weeks ago, a Maryland jury convicted a Republican official who oversaw illegal voter-suppression tactics in the 2010 election. This week, a state judge found that Indiana’s Secretary of State, Republican Charlie White, not only committed voter fraud in 2010, but wasn’t even eligible to seek the office to which he was elected.

Charlie White is ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and should be replaced by his election opponent, Democrat Vop Osili, a Marion County judge ruled today.

White is facing seven felony charges, including allegations of voter fraud. Osili was the second-highest vote-getter in the November 2010 election."

@Dose -- The payroll tax creates strange politics. It is a regressive tax, but one that is sold as an insurance policy (Medicare / Workers Comp / Disability) and retirement (SS) plan.

So plans to actually reform it run into philosophical objections from liberals who fear that changing the way these programs are funded will undermine their ability to present them as self-funded investment vehicles.

That's why I jabbed at your presentation of payroll taxes as a tax. If only we could get all liberals to agree on that, we might get somewhere.

It is quite amazing to see lefties overlook the opportunities in required voter IDs. First, whole new governmental agencies could be built around the requirement necessitating the hiring of legions of slow witted overpaid "workers" to administer the issuance of the vile cards. All of the splendid benefits of working for the government would be conferred on these drones who would instantly begin to think of new requirements to vote thus insuring the need for more workers and more pay. There would be a union, of course.

I'm very aware how it works. Explain how it is not an income tax by the federal government.

@DBQ

It's a tax directly taken from your income (at the exact same time other withholdings for income tax are taken) and like I said, just because the expenditure is already marked (ie what the government will do with it) doesn't change the nature of it before the government collects it. It's an income tax.

@Both, we're way off topic, let's close it down. You guys are welcome to a reply, but I won't respond to try and get back to the point of the thread.

The only way we ever detect widespread vote fraud at present is to have a logically absurd result, like more ballots counted than cast, or more ballots counted than registered voters.

...which, mind you, is not exactly an event that never happens.

Because the democrats don't want this law, you assume it's because THEY are committing this fraud?

There's a doubt about that? I'm sure Gregoire winning the WA Governorship after 3 recounts all added more votes to her total from one county was totally legit. As was Franken's win. No shakiness there at all.

Dose of Sanity said... @ Geo - You failed in assuming I would be "party-line" on that. Of course I want everyone's vote to be counted. Also, is there really a big demand to move the day? Don't most employers let you vote?

I would suffer sarah palin a million times over than have a fraudulent election which Obama won.

Other motivations? Hmmm...like fraud? Follow the money. Who was paying ACORN?

If our voter registrations system is deeply flawed, and it is, then the whole system is potentially corrupt. So when "Donald Duck," a "legally" registered voter shows up at the polling place with a valid street address, he votes, and so do Mickey and Minnie. It's the perfect crime.

You have demonstrated a clear ignorance of the Federal tax system and a inability to understand that there is a Federal income tax and FICA tax, both of which are completely seperate. If you look at your paystub you will clearly see the difference.

"Being from Canada I'm always baffled that no one points out Canada requires voters to show ID."

Canada had property voting requirements until the later years of the 19th century, the prime minister can prorogue Parliament, and free speech is not as free as it ought to be in Canada.

Why doesn't the US make all voting IDs free and require the states to issue them on weekends and extended hours? Those who are concerned about fraud could propose this solution to offset concern that citizens will be disenfranchised.

Those who are quite poor often do not have cars. Free IDs and extended hours would help to assure that the poor and those who work 3 jobs can get a voter ID.

Personally I just like Holder's intellectual dishonesty whenever it suits the idealogical agenda...ID for voting is discriminatory based on speech in TX that required ID to enter the building and the speech.

Why doesn't the US make all voting IDs free and require the states to issue them on weekends and extended hours? Those who are concerned about fraud could propose this solution to offset concern that citizens will be disenfranchised.

This is an excellent idea.

Why not indeed? Since most people don't move around so frequently the cost for reissue and re-registration would be minimal.

***************

While we are at it let's also remove my DL fee, insurance reqquirments, driver's identificiation requirements and vehicle registration costs :-)

I'm being disenfranchised from being able to drive. I'm being repressed. Look at the violence inherent in the system!!!

Why doesn't the US make all voting IDs free and require the states to issue them on weekends and extended hours? Those who are concerned about fraud could propose this solution to offset concern that citizens will be disenfranchised.

That has, in fact, already been done. Holder's position seems to be that any procedural requirements at all are racist, which is itself a patronizingly racist assertion. One which DoS "understands" but certainly would never "say," just to be clear.

P.S., please cite the nature of the "disparate impact." Simply saying, "disparate impact" is not an argument. In fact, given that the much-decried limited DMV hours are in mainly rural areas, and that blacks in Wisconsin are hevily concentrated in central urban areas where DMV access is greatest, the disparate impact, such as it is, would, it seems to me, have to run heavily against white people.

I am adamantly, unapologetically pro voter ID requirements. I always have been, and I always will be.

That said, I am a fully functioning member of society, I get out plenty, and to be honest with you? I can think of only one occasion in the past several years when I had to pull out my drivers license. When I lived on the East Coast, I had to do so frequently. But here, for whatever reasons, for all intents and purposes I never do.

For some reason illegal aliens are more capable of obtaining identification than American citizens.

So, they not only displace Americans at work, school, and throughout our society; but, they also diffuse the value of our vote, and delegitimize the rule of law.

It's amusing that people who purportedly claim admiration for the democratic process can be so at odds with preserving the value of legitimate votes and oppose, in progressive measure, the singular democratic process of the market. They just may be misrepresenting their true nature.

Anyway, the votes Democrats cannot purchase outright with taxpayer funds, will simply be manufactured, invented, or legalized. That is the legacy of progressive corruption promoted by individuals and groups in their effort to consolidate wealth and power.

It is dreams of physical, material, and ego instant gratification, principally through redistributive and retributive change (i.e. involuntary exploitation), but also through fraudulent exploitation, which have been the causal factor in the progressive corruption of individuals and society.